Retrieve Pipedrive activities with optional filters by type, deal, or user to analyze sales pipeline engagement and deal velocity.
Get activities with optional filters
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | Filter by activity type | |
| dealId | No | Filter by deal ID | |
| userId | No | Filter by user ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers almost nothing: it does not state that this is a read-only operation, whether results are paginated, how many records are returned by default, or any permission requirements. For a list endpoint with zero annotation coverage, this is a substantial gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single short sentence with no filler, and the resource is front-loaded after the verb. It is efficient, though the brevity edges into under-specification rather than tight precision.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is structurally simple (three optional scalar filters, no nesting, no output schema), so a terse description is defensible. Still, with no annotations and no output schema, an agent gets no signal about pagination, result volume, or ordering for what is likely a list endpoint.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three filters (type, dealId, userId) are documented in the schema itself. The description's phrase 'optional filters' only confirms that none are required, adding negligible meaning beyond the structured data; baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a verb ('Get') and a resource ('activities'), which is minimally adequate, but 'activities' is never defined and no scope or sibling differentiation is offered against get_deals, get_leads, or get_pipelines. An agent can infer this is a read of activity records, but nothing confirms what an activity is or how it relates to the other entities.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The only guidance is 'with optional filters', which restates the schema's required-field count rather than explaining when to call this tool. No alternatives, no conditions, no mention of when-not to use it (e.g., versus pulling activities for a single deal via another tool).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.